<< Sexual identity is
merely what it is- sexual identity. It is what you choose to
be. >>

I don't know
any homosexual or heterosexual who "chose" their sexual identity. One can
debate genetics and environmental factors, but I believe the consensus of the
gay community is that sexual orientation is not a choice. Heterosexuals
often say about gays, "they choose to be that way." However, if you turn it
around and say about straights, "they choose to be that way," it will most
likely be considered absurd.

[clip]

<<< When I think of
homosexuality, I think of sexual practices and less of identity. Is Hugh
Hefner gay for having sex with men? Or is he bisexual? Or is he merely a
confused heterosexual? Why not simply specify the acts as being either
hetero or homo and leave it at that? >>>>

Sexuality is a
complex issue. I think the terms homosexuality and
heterosexualityrefer to sexual
orientations, not sexual acts. Refering to sexual acts, one would say, "a
homosexual/heterosexual act." Saying that, I don't think everyone can be easily
labeled (although I don't agree that everyone is bisexual either.) The
Kinsey scale says that most individual's sexual orientation is somewhere in
between being totally homosexual and totally heterosexual. Some people are
more curious than others, some are experimenting to find their own sexuality,
there are bisexuals, transexuals - quite a diversity.

I don't
classify my sexuality by the types of sexual acts I may engage in. A
heterosexual male wouldn't say I am a "missionary positioner" or
an "oral sexicator." Sexual acts are a preference, the gender of the
person you are sexually attracted to is one's sexual identification, and
not a preference.

<<<As for the gun
control issue, in the absence of a police state, I think it is reasonable
that people should be able to defend themselves with a firearm. The police
cannot be everywhere. I especially think women should possess firearms
considering that they are seen as easy prey and are more prone to physical
assault. >>>

As far as capital punishment and gun
control, I think the taking of life period is wrong.

<<<As for the
homosexuality issue, heterosexuality is superior because of reproduction.
Members of the same sex cannot bear biological offspring. >>>

This seems to presume that the only
reason for sex is procreation. The pope may think this, but I doubt most
sexually active people, gay or straight, would.

<<< Other than that, I
have no problem with gays and lesbians. This may distress you, but this is
the way life is. I think too much of the gay agenda is spent trying to
make homosexuality as legitimate as heterosexuality when this cannot be
done. >>>

I believe homosexuality is as
legitimate as heterosexuality. Who is the judge that it is
not? Are you using the ability to reproduce as the sole criteria?
Where does that put heterosexual couples that cannot reproduce? Where
does that put the Chinese who can only have one child (or is it two?) in the
Republic of China?

The reason homosexuality is not seen
as legitimate by many is ignorance and intolerance. 200 years ago who
would have thought slavery would ever be abolished or women would vote?
Education and tolerance helped to make the change.

[clip]

<<<I consider my
position to be reasonable, but many in the gay community are unreasonable
in their demands. As Gore Vidal put it, he could not understand why anyone
would want to be identified by a sexual practice. I think the gay movement
has moved beyond the basic right to be treated with diginity [sic]
and respect and into the area of Balkanization that
is so rampant and is contrary to cosmopolitanism. >>>

As you write
this gay men and women are still being beaten, killed, denied civil rights,
rejected from families, made fun of and committing suicide because of
hate. These things would not be happening if gays were treated with
dignity and respect. Tell Matthew Shepherd that "we have overcome." I
think society has a ways to go on this issue - we are still struggling with
racism.

The issue
isn't that gays want to be identified by their "sexual practice." If one lives
an open life one's sexuality is bound to be exposed. There would be no
problem if this exposure wasn't met with fear causing hate. Holding a
lover's hand in public, going on public dates, buying furniture together,
setting up home, raising children, etc. give away one's sexual identity.
When heterosexual's do these things, they are not given a second thought, but
when a homosexual does these things they are "flaunting."

Peace and
Justice,

Robert

Fortunatus

Hello Mr. Broadway, ... Your argument seems to be that Prohibition was relatively successful, and that it is better to try and fail than not to try at all. I

Message 3 of 13
, Apr 2, 2002

0 Attachment

Hello Mr. Broadway,

> THE DRUG WAR

Your argument seems to be that Prohibition was relatively successful,
and that it is better to try and fail than not to try at all. I agree
with you this far. However, there is more than one way to try, and it
is illogical to continue doing something that clearly fails to make a
situation better when there is plenty of room for experimentation. It
is ridiculous to endlessly pound one's head against a wall if there
might be a door around the corner. I do think that legalization is
probably not that door, but there are quite likely much better ways to
spend the several billion dollars spent each year on the war on drugs.

> HOMOSEXUALITY REVISITED

Mr. Tyner has adequately addressed the subject of sexuality. It is not
a binary system, and sex acts do not necessarily define sexuality.

> The issue you raise here is the issue of validity. Here is a story
> based on numerous true occurrences that should shed light on what I
> think the flaws of this binary thinking are:

What binary thinking? Does the apocryphal incident you mentioned really
have any bearing on the validity of homosexual relationships? What
you're suggesting is that it is a human duty to reproduce, that anyone
who chooses not to do so is therefore abandoning his or her duty, and
that homosexuality is a choice that is therefore an abandonment of duty.
I disagree with you that reproduction is a duty, and the jury is
definitely still out on the degree to which homosexuality is a choice.

And, I can provide you with apocryphal stories that are quite as valid
as yours, though not nearly as sensational, that support my contention
that homosexual relationships can be (and generally are) as valid as any
heterosexual relationship.

> The whole homosexual controversy is really a product of what
> constitutes the good life.

No. The important part of the homosexual controversy is that a group of
people who have historically been the target of immense discrimination
are now demanding if not respect, then at least equality before the law.
Such groups are never homogenous nor without contrary examples, and
they often go too far in their efforts to redress the wrongs done to
them, but these things do not detract from the principle that all human
beings ought to be reasonably free to determine the course of their own
lives as they see fit.

> Nature shows us that reproduction is necessary for the survival of
> the species.

It also shows us that homosexuality is relatively common and natural
among mammals.

> As a byproduct, sex is also a pleasurable act. Marriage
> was instituted as a way of clarifying reproduction in order to serve
> the social order.

Social contracts evolve over time. Marriage is no exception.

> This view is now going through some modification where partners
> are seen as equals, but in a hostile world, women were amenable to
> marriage and becoming chattel because they were at the mercy of men.
> It was reasonable to look to a man for protection since it beat the
> alternative.

Study extant tribal cultures a bit more. Marriage, even among stone age
cultures, is far more complex, with much more give and take, than simple
slavery in return for protection.

> Whether the institution of marriage is logical in modern times is
> debatable, but it is clear that homosexuals wish to use it to
> legitimize a judgment that they have made. It's like seeking a
> presidential pardon for a crime that you did not commit.

No. It's like seeking equal rights under the law. It's like fighting
for a recognition of the legitimacy of one's existence in the eyes of
one's country.

> Let's look at it another way. You have a guy named Fred who has sex
> with his goat named Billy. He finds this sex to be very fulfilling
> and wishes to marry Billy in a civil ceremony. Naturally, the powers
> that be reject such a thing. Why? Because these two individuals are
> not the same species. Why should this matter? Who are we to question
> the mysteries of love?
>
> My question to you is this, why is Fred and Billy's relationship not
> as valid as a homosexual or heterosexual relationship?

If Billy is as intelligent, mature, and capable of making a sane
decision as any adult human, then I would see the relationship as
entirely valid and would have no problem with the two of them marrying.
Modern marriage is (or at least ought to be) a willing union of
competent equals. Since Billy is not an equal, it is simply a case of a
man who abuses an animal for his own pleasure. This is the same
principal that forbids children and mentally deficient people from
marrying, and considers sexual relations with them to be rape.